John August

Search Results for: residuals

Amazon Studios, round three

Follow Up

Amazon Studio’s new venture isn’t getting much love from the screenbloggers. Craig Mazin thinks the [deal is grotesque](http://artfulwriter.com/?p=1103):

> Here’s where Amazon kind of disgusts me. They put this whole “Hollywood is old and lame, and we’re the new hotness” vibe out there. In their intro video, their hip spokesman with the spiky haircut is an inclusive, welcoming voice. Hollywood is represented by a fat old Jew at a desk.

> Funny thing, though. The actual terms of Amazon’s “studio” are so much worse than those offered by Hollywood studios, it’s grotesque.

As I’d hoped, Craig digs in on the terrible financial upside of the deal, including the lack of credit protection or residuals. Even if your movie gets produced, another writer could easily get the screenwriting credit:

> Or…and here’s the kicker…WB could hire a WGA writer under a WGA contract to rewrite the script (if they hire any writer directly at all, it must be under a WGA deal). At that point, the Amazon work becomes source material, and the original writers are not eligible for ANY WGA credit at all. Just a “based on a screenplay by” credit. The WGA writers–even if they only wrote five words–would be the only writers eligible for WGA credit and residuals.

Michael Ferris is impressed by the marketing, but [sours on the details](http://www.scriptmag.com/2010/11/17/amazon-com-studios-the-new-way-to-break-into-the-industry/):

> Amazon touts this whole “revisions” thing as a type of love nest/commune of artist’s collaboration, when in reality we screenwriters view it as a pack of dirty kindergartners sticking their grubby little ravenous fingers into the beautiful pie we just baked.

I honestly looked for some positive reviews, but haven’t found them.

As I write this, the [Amazon Studios site](http://studios.amazon.com/projects?sort=current) shows 994 projects. But is there one worth making? Could their system spot it? One of the goals of the system seems to be finding a needle in a haystack. I wonder if they’re just getting more hay.

Why the Netflix/WB deal isn’t a bad thing

Film Industry, Video

This afternoon, Netflix announced that it [wouldn’t be shipping new releases](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34731701/ns/business-consumer_news/) from Warner Bros. until 28 days after street date. In exchange for this window, WB is giving better prices and — most crucially — deeper access to its library for Netflix’s streaming service.

The deal makes sense for Warners. Most DVDs are sold in the first month after release, so if they can turn rentals into sales, they come out ahead.

The deal makes sense for Netflix, too. They’re lowering one of their primary costs and getting more content for their Watch Instantly service. To their credit, they understand that the business of mailing DVDs will end. The future is streaming, and they’re increasingly well-positioned.

If you’re a Netflix subscriber who mostly watches new releases, this deal sucks.

Netflix will probably lose some customers in the near term, particularly as other studios cut similar deals. But they may gain more customers with a better streaming library. Netflix has a strange relationship with subscribers: they want to keep them happy but not too happy, since shipping each disc costs real money. My hunch is that the company has crunched the numbers and discovered that the folks who mostly rent new releases end up costing more to support.

If you’re a writer with a movie on home video, this is probably a good deal. You make residuals on DVD sales and streaming, not subscription rentals.

When Netflix ships a disc of Corpse Bride, I get nothing. When Netflix ships those bits over the internet, Warners gets paid, and I get a few cents. That’s good.

On the WGA elections

WGA

I was traveling last week when the WGA ballots were mailed out. Now that I’m back, I’ve had a chance to look through the candidates’ statements and endorsements. I want to explain my priorities for this election.

The future is important. The present is essential.
—–
The guild has focused so much of its energy on new frontiers — organizing reality television, political action committees, new media residuals — that we’re doing a lackluster job of providing basic services to our members: the boring but essential stuff like collecting residuals and enforcing contracts.

We’re running a deficit. We’re laying off staff members. We rail against “management,” but the fact is that our guild does not feel particularly well-managed. I want a president, secretary/treasurer and board of directors who will focus first on getting our own house in order. When I call the guild with a question, I want an answer. I want follow-up.

This may mean hiring more people, and firing some under-performers. This is a business. The guild needs to operate like one.

Groupthink is nothink
—–
I want a diversity of opinion and experience throughout the board. I’m leery of slates. I’ve endorsed several candidates who disagree with each other.

Rebuilding burnt bridges
—–
During a strike, it’s natural to demonize any person or organization that seems to be standing in the way of our goals. But the strike is over. DGA, SAG, AFTRA and IATSE aren’t stumbling blocks; they’re peers. We have reasons to be frustrated with these groups and their leaders, but the fact is that most of our goals overlap. We need to be meeting with them regularly and cordially.

The same can be said for the studios themselves. Their objectives are transparent — get as much as they can for as little as possible. But, like us, they also want to keep working. They want to figure out how to make money as technologies change and prices fall towards zero. They want to shoot movies and TV shows locally for a fair price.

Just as in international diplomacy, we’re often both partners and adversaries. I want officers and board members who understand this and don’t let heated rhetoric ruin any chance of cooperation.

My choices
—-
In all my conversations with **Howard Michael Gould**, I’ve been impressed with his ability to see multiple sides of an issue. His candidate statement for Vice President outlines exactly the points I think are most important.

I don’t know **Chris Keyser**, but his candidate statement for Secretary/Treasurer emphasizes enforcement and better fiscal discipline. These are my priorities. **Steven Schwartz** makes other important points about getting writers the money they’re owed.

**John Wells** is controversial because he’s perceived as being more of a producer than a writer. That’s naive, of course: in television, successful writers become producers, and mega-successful producers become John Wells. His experience and connections are an asset. His intercession during the strike wouldn’t have been necessary if guild leadership had engaged the DGA earlier.

**Howard Rodman** is a good friend, and an important advocate for indie writers, who are often overlooked. As a guild, we need to make sure we’re representing all screenwriters before trying to broaden our reach.

I got to know **Ian Deitchman** through United Hollywood and Strike.TV. Reading his candidate statement, I like that he’s pragmatic about the realities of new media, and the importance of enforcing the current contract.

Writer/directors like **Billy Ray** can help bridge the gap with the DGA. **Jeff Lowell** makes that a priority as well.

These are my opinions on the candidates and the issues. I’ll be keeping comments closed, because I don’t really want this to become another forum for accusations and potshots. It’s already become a frustratingly ugly election. My hope is that we can move beyond personalities to the crucial issues.

If you’re a WGA member, please vote. The deadline for ballots is September 17th — but mail them in early to be safe.

Cablevision and the infinite TiVo

Film Industry, Television, WGA

This morning, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on a service Cablevision hopes to introduce. It’s an issue every screenwriter (or TV viewer) should be watching closely, because it could have a huge impact on the entertainment industry.

The case is called Cable News Network vs. CSC Holdings. The case made it to the Supreme Court after a U.S. Appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision. The case will probably end up back at the Supreme Court this fall.

The issue is deceptively straightforward: Cablevision wants to offer its customers a “remote storage digital video recorder.”

At first blush, this seems pretty unobjectionable. Under current U.S. law, it’s legal for a consumer to record television programs for later viewing. This is considered time-shifting, and was first made possible by the VCR. Conventional DVRs are high-tech cousins to VCRs, with a hard drive replacing the videotape. In the U.S., many cable and satellite companies provide boxes that include DVR functionality, generally for an additionally monthly fee.

Cablevision wants to offer DVR as a service instead of a device. Rather than recording 30 Rock on the box attached to your TV, the show will be recorded at Cablevision’s headquarters. Then, when you want to watch it, Cablevision will send the show to your television. If it works right, it should feel just like a normal DVR. Only without the cost of the DVR.

If Cablevision offers this service, I think it will be very successful. Less hardware means less things to break, and the service could presumably send a show to any TV in the house. (Some conventional DVRs can do that, but it’s often a hassle.) Plus, storage scales very well. Cablevision could offer a user much more recording space than a conventional DVR.

In fact, Cablevision could offer unlimited storage. And that’s where it gets dangerous.

Say Mary Jones sets her Cablevision RS-DVR to record 30 Rock. So does Bob Smith. Cablevision only needs to record it once. They can send the bits to Mary or Bob whenever one of them asks for it. ((Alternately, Cablevision could partition drives so that every customer has a certain number of gigabtytes (terabytes? petabytes?) of storage, and record each show in that partition just like a conventional DVR. But this is tremendously inefficient, and nearly impossible to audit.))

Given that Cablevision has more than four million customers, it’s a fair bet that at least one of their customers would be interested in any given show, so it makes sense for Cablevision to record and catalog every channel it distributes, 24/7/365.

Conventional DVRs only record what you ask them to record, with some modifiers, such as “new episodes of The Simpsons,” or “movies with Steven Seagal.” So for Cablevision’s service to work like a conventional DVR, it should only offer you programs you specifically chose to record. No fair waking up Friday and asking for last night’s The Office.

But wait. Cablevision is already recording every show. Why don’t they just offer a “Record Everything” option?

Once they offer you the choice to record everything, you suddenly have the ability to watch any show broadcast since you signed on to the service. This is transformative, a [Wayback Machine](http://archive.org) for television.

It would also destroy television as we know it.

Here’s where I put in my obligatory, “I’m no Luddite” disclaimer. I was the first person I know to have a DVR (the original ReplayTV), and consider myself highly familiar with the legal and less-legal options for watching video on computers and TV. As a consumer and geek, I would love to have a service like Cablevision’s. But I don’t think Cablevision should be allowed to do it their way.

Cablevision’s RS-DVR is back-door video-on-demand. They’re trying to offer the networks’ output to their customers on their own temrs, without paying any additional fees.

But it’s worse than that.

A service like Cablevision’s makes reruns absurd. Why would anyone watch a rerun of Desperate Housewives when it’s always been available for free on the RS-DVR? And it’s not just television shows that are affected. In a Cablevision universe, a feature film loses all its television value the first time it’s shown. Why would HBO want to show Slumdog Millionaire more than once, considering everyone who could ever want to see it would have it available for free in perpetuity via Cablevision?

For that matter, why buy a DVD, or spend $9.99 to buy a movie through iTunes when that same film is sitting on your (virtual) DVR?

Without reruns and ancillary markets (like DVDs and iTunes), there are no residuals, so that’s obviously a concern for writers.

But it’s worse than that.

*Without reruns and ancillary markets, there are no feature films and no scripted television.* Outside of lower-cost reality programming, it is simply not profitable to make a movie or TV show that can only be shown theatrically, or once on television. Very, very few movies are profitable in their theatrical release. Most make their money on video and television, which would largely be irrelevant with services like Cablevision’s. A movie studio could decide to never permit their films be shown on any station carried by Cablevision. For television, that’s not an option.

So what should happen?

The Supreme Court should rule that copyright holders (the studios, in this case) retain the right to profit from the distribution of their work for a given period of time. Yes, copyright law is frustrating, and corporations routinely abuse their authority through DMCA and endless extensions. Generally, the studios are the bad guys, so it’s hard to be on their side. But if they’re not getting paid, nobody’s getting paid. And if nobody’s getting paid, there is no industry.

The studios should then negotiate with Cablevision and all the other cable and satellite providers to roll out a system that calls this service what it really is: video-on-demand. A consumer should be able to watch (or record in their home) an episode when it’s first broadcast, or get it through VOD for a fee. That fee should be low, cheap enough to make it an appealing alternative to piracy.

And studios should continue to support Hulu, iTunes and all the other competing services. Television will change, and it will probably resemble something like what Cablevision is trying to do. But it needs to keep paying the people who make the shows, both corporations and individuals. Or there’s no television left.